yuastnav wrote on Jan 25, 2015, 15:11:He cannot stretch the development of the game out indefinitely, or else something similar that happened to Duke Nukem Forever will happen, too.

If I remember correctly (and the early E3 trailers will probably confirm that) it was supposed to use the Unreal (Tournament) engine but since the engine was old they decided to scrap the project and redo it.

So Star Citizen will have to limitations.1. At some point the tech of the game will get old, be it because of advancements in graphics, user interface (i.e. how players expect a game should handle).2. The game is limited by the available tech. You cannot have a huge world with millions of dynamically changeable parts because the computation and memory restrictions won't allow it.

I just don't get how they think they can get away with such a project. Maybe the programmers didn't tell Roberts that what he wants is impossible and hope that it will just become abandonware at some point? Or maybe it will have to be scaled down at some point.

I always heard that SC was going to use Crysis as the game engine. Never heard about the UT engine being used.

But even so, they're basically having to rewrite most of it since the Crysis engine isn't meant to render entire solar systems at once.

I guess I misplaced a paragraph. I meant that DNF used the UT engine, as panbient pointed out (although I didn't know it started out with the Quake 2 engine), at which point they decided it's too old and had to start from scratch again.

What I mean is that the Crysis engine is also a couple of years old already and, from a technological standpoint, probably not the most modern one (it's likely I'm wrong in some way since I don't know anything about that topic).And if they end up rewriting big parts of it to suit the game AND have to rewrite other aspects to just keep up with the times I'll wonder why they started out using this engine in the first place instead making one on their own. This is the part that made least sense to me.Yeah, Crysis levels were big but this is just a whole different scale, especially considering that they want to have the ship aspect AND the fps aspect in the game.

I'm curious how they're going to do it in E:D since some devs professed interest not only in planetary landing but also in walking around your own ship.

He cannot stretch the development of the game out indefinitely, or else something similar that happened to Duke Nukem Forever will happen, too.

If I remember correctly (and the early E3 trailers will probably confirm that) it was supposed to use the Unreal (Tournament) engine but since the engine was old they decided to scrap the project and redo it.

So Star Citizen will have to limitations.1. At some point the tech of the game will get old, be it because of advancements in graphics, user interface (i.e. how players expect a game should handle).2. The game is limited by the available tech. You cannot have a huge world with millions of dynamically changeable parts because the computation and memory restrictions won't allow it.

I just don't get how they think they can get away with such a project. Maybe the programmers didn't tell Roberts that what he wants is impossible and hope that it will just become abandonware at some point? Or maybe it will have to be scaled down at some point.

nin wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 17:57:I love SR, but I'm tired of these expansions. I want a new, full game.

Fat chance.

From what I've read is that they are sort of done...? I think they are unsure themselves. On the one hand they explicitly stated they have no idea where to go from here since they can't think of anything even more over the top.On the other hand they still want to make games in the Saints Row universe.

This probably means that we are stuck with these kinds of expansions. It's only a matter of time, though, until even the last person gets tired and just stops buying them.

yuastnav wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 09:26:I'm not some kid, I've been using the internet for about 13 years (I was a teen back then) and the first thing that I actually did was download mIRC. I guess I've been hanging around in the wrong channels since death threats wasn't something that happened often.Yeah, some people were assholes and on some boards I visited you could catch some death threat by some idiot before the mods cleaned it up but it was just that. A threat. It wasn't someone stalking you over the net, trying to find out as much info about you as possible.This is what's sociopathic. Obsessing about someone, looking for their address, sending cops to that place and then gleefully laughing at the thought that this might get someone killed. This is of course a minority but if someone is determined enough he could do some real damage.

So you feel it is justified that Sarkesian labels an entire culture (of which you are a part of) as sexist and bigoted as a result of personal death threats made against her? (Of which BTW I have yet to see her produce any evidence or relevant police reports) I dont see Angelina Jolie, or Brad Pitt etc. labeling movie goers as psychopaths despite being on the recieving end of much worse. This is what is happening in gaming, gamers are being called out and this is what people take issue with.

I don't know exactly what she said. I don't recall her saying that all gamers are sexist etc. but I don't know. Personally I've never felt that she's addressing me, even though I am a male gamer. Maybe it's also because I agree that there is sexism in games but also probably because this is an important topic for me and because I have very strong opinions about sexism.I understand that some might be offended because they are called something they are not in which case I can only recommend to just be cool and deal with it in a rational way. Maybe then you can see things differently.In other cases it probably hits too close to home and people are offended of being called sexist because it's true and they don't want to admit it.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 09:26:

yuastnav wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 06:21:What I don't yet understand is why so many of you take offence at what's being done to combat that kind of behaviour. Judging from the wording some of you even take that as a personal affront.

Pardon me if I'm skeptical of Quinn's 'doing something to combat that kind of behavior'. I'd support people who I could trust were committed to dealing with harassers and providing support for people who were harassed, period. In this case? I'd bet parts of my left hand that what Quinn envisions is a platform for boosting herself, legitimizing her (political, social activist) friends, and de-legitimizing her (political, social activist) enemies.

Maybe that's true. Maybe that's paranoia. Time will tell.

Agrolith wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 09:54:

it's difficult to come across something like that for someone who hasn't followed what went down very closely

Then how can you draw, what looks to be a one sided conclusion if you haven't followed everything?

How can I not? The alternative would be to not form an opinion at all, to say that I don't know everything and that I just stay silent.But I'll never know anything. Feminism is an important topic for me and I will call out sexism where I see it. Regardless of how gamergate started, one of the sides definitely has a lot of sexism (again, I'm not saying that there aren't people who truly believe that they are fighting for something important, i.e. ethics in journalism) and I have the feeling that a lot of feminists are maybe misunderstood? I'm not talking about extremists like Alice Schwarzer or whoever who claim that "all men are pigs" bla bla.Some here describe Anita and Zoe etc. in ways that I don't see. Of course they aren't flawless. And who knows, maybe Anita is really not a real gamer (I remember something along the lines) but what's important is the bigger picture and that's something that is above the individuals.

Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 10:05:

So you feel it is justified that Sarkesian labels an entire culture (of which you are a part of) as sexist and bigoted as a result of personal death threats made against her?

It's also mighty targeted. If you disagree with them about anything, if you're critical of them, bam... you're on the side of people who hate women and love to send them death threats. If you condemn that sort of behavior? That's just your cover story. If you really meant it you would abandon all your criticism of them and criticize their critics!

See, that's just something that I don't see. Maybe I'm not getting the whole thing so correct me if I'm wrong but they are not impervious to criticism and I don't think they behave in this way.

panbient wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 10:17:[...]It's pretty simple, people can't find out personal details about you unless you choose to make them public online. And fact is, regardless of how mainstream the internet has become, it's still very much a free for all. If you're going to poke a stick at a hornets nest you should expect to get stung. I'm not saying it's right, or that the people making threats are justified, only that it's foolishly naive to be any sort of shocked or surprised by the behavior.

But the fact of the matter is that we as humans don't learn from other people's mistakes and there is always the thought that somehow this will not happen to you.It's difficult to comprehend something before you didn't experience it first hand. It's easy to say "Oh, he or she got doxxed, no big deal. They are partly to blame anyway since they released so much of their info on the internet."Everyone can slip up. And how many of you can honestly say that they are in complete control over how much information they released on the net. Unless you are very careful and/or paranoid you may say or do something that will be used in way that you've never imagined.

Let's say someone wants a personal website and buys a domain. At least here in Germany the information can be obtained via whois, don't know about providers in other countries, so it's not really hidden in any way. Someone who has no idea about this will be very surprised when he or she gets some very nasty things in their mailbox all of a sudden.This is a crude example, of course, but most of us aren't in control and quite often when you publish something on the net it's there to stay.

yuastnav wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 06:21:What I don't yet understand is why so many of you take offence at what's being done to combat that kind of behaviour. Judging from the wording some of you even take that as a personal affront.

The issue is overblown. Overblown beyond all proportions and anyone who has spent any significant ammount of time online will atest to that fact. Most of us have been on the internet since its inception. We are all veterans of IRC/ICQ and countless forums and online games. We intimately understand and know what kind of behaviour is fostered on an anonymous soapbox (with potential worldwide reach). Internet etiquette is non existant, hence the importance of adhering to simple rules when publishing work online. Most importantly we are aware of the huge disconnect between what happens on the interenet and what goes on in the real world. Regardless of the media trend of giving ever more imporatance to itself, this disconnect is real and it is huge. Death threats for example on the internet are common, not because the internet is populated by sociopaths but because anonmymity gives people a smokescreen, it allows them to act out and vent in ways they would never even consider in real life, say over the telephone. People have been smacktalking online since the Doom days. That doest meen that most of those same people are criminals or bigots. Yeah even the terrible trolls are simply just that. Trolls. There are always bad and completely rotten apples that take these things to an extreme but even with those cases taken into acount its wrong and immoral to label an entire culture as criminal or bigoted.

This is my 2c, or rather my reason for taking affront with the likes of Anita Sarkessian or Zoe Quinn. I dont have anything against these women personally, I just injustice wherever I find it and I find it unjust that these ladies are agitating an entire community for what is personal gain.

I'm not some kid, I've been using the internet for about 13 years (I was a teen back then) and the first thing that I actually did was download mIRC. I guess I've been hanging around in the wrong channels since death threats wasn't something that happened often.Yeah, some people were assholes and on some boards I visited you could catch some death threat by some idiot before the mods cleaned it up but it was just that. A threat. It wasn't someone stalking you over the net, trying to find out as much info about you as possible.This is what's sociopathic. Obsessing about someone, looking for their address, sending cops to that place and then gleefully laughing at the thought that this might get someone killed. This is of course a minority but if someone is determined enough he could do some real damage.

Agrolith wrote on Jan 20, 2015, 09:07:Sounds like you, like most media took bias and only looked at one side of the story.More then enough of the people that suppport gamergame have also been harrassed, Doxxed, and send stuff in the mail like needles and dead animals.instead of just getting all your information from biased media. do more reading.http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/wiki/index

would be a good place to start.

If by media you mean sites like Polygon, Eurogamer, Kotaku or whatever then I haven't read any media at all.I read a bit in wikis, looked at twitter and at stuff what people posted, a few blogs maybe etc. I will not dispute that supporters of gamergate were also harassed, however, it's difficult to come across something like that for someone who hasn't followed what went down very closely. To me the majority of said harassment seems to be coming from the gamergate site, which is amplified by the suspect claims that it's all for ethics whereas there are cases where that is clearly not the case.

One thing that boggles my mind is the rabid hatred some of these people have for feminism or women.

I've been reading too much mainstream media? Hell, I just have to visit something like reaxxion if I feel the need to throw up. It's astounding what kind of delusions people spin out of their fantasies.

So I've finally taken some time to read up on what has happened in the last few months.From what I see there are quite a few people who align themselves with gamergate that deliberately hunt down anyone who dares to say anything against their behaviour or their motives by trying to get any information (including addresses and addresses of friends, relatives etc.) they can and then publish them on the internet.If some posts/reactions can be trusted some take even a weird kind of pleasure in doing harm to people with differing ideals, even going as far as calling the police by reporting fake crimes or whatever. This is already sociopathic behaviour. However, since it's coming from places like 4chan it's actually not that surprising.

What I don't yet understand is why so many of you take offence at what's being done to combat that kind of behaviour. Judging from the wording some of you even take that as a personal affront.

Harassment in any kind of form takes its toll on one's mind, be it anonymous or not.

I get the feeling that the whole "ethics in journalism" thing is just a front and gamergate is not about that but about some people getting off to harassing others on the internet. Which, actually, is also not that surprising.

I've poured thousands of hours into Natural Selection, sometime between 2003 and 2006.Natural Selection may be dead but in our hearts it will still live on. I think having a Gorge plushy is a nice memento, even though I am a bit disappointed that it's blue and not green. In Natural Selection it was certainly very green-yellowish and I've only played very little Natural Selection 2 to judge whether the blue colour is fitting. NS2 is too broken, unfortunately. At least it was last time I played it. :/

By the way, how is the traffic AI in GTA V?I realise that this game is not for driving around normally but I sometimes like to do that. From what I remember it wasn't bad in Saints Row 3 (it's pretty annoying in Saints Row 4) but the traffic AI in GTA IV is terrible.

- If you stop at a red light the cars behind you get impatient and will try to overtake you, as if you're not supposed to be there and ram into you.- If a NPC car runs over a cop he will act as if nothing happened.- A police car that crashes into you will immediately become hostile- In case of an imminent crash the NPC AI will just continue driving forward instead of trying to get out of your way.- Instead of trying to maintain traffic flow AI cars will abruptly stop if there is another car in a ~120° cone in front of them which can cause huge traffic jams at crossroads.

It's incredibly annoying to drive around the city in a normal way and from I've read GTA V is worse and even the first Saints row had better traffic AI.For shame Rockstar. For shame.